4
$\begingroup$

I'm reading a College Geometry: A Unified Development [unfortunately not available through google book preview], and I came across the Theorem, that circle inversions preserve angles between two arbitrary intersecting curves

Figure 8.44 from the book

The proof goes about proving, that the angle $\theta$ between the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ (depicted in $\color{red}{\text{red}}$ and $\color{blue}{\text{blue}}$ colors respectively in the figure) is the same as the angle $\theta'$ between the images of those curves under the circle inversion.

$t_1$ and $t_2$ (colored lines) are tangents to $C_1$ and $C_2$ curves respectively.

$t_1'$ and $t_2'$ circles are images of $t_1$ and $t_2$ under the inversion (straight lines are mapped to circles through $O$ - the center of circle of inversion).

Dashed lines near the $O$ are tangents to circles, and the solid lines near the second point of circle intersection ($P'$) - are tangents to mapped curves.

The proof goes by claiming that $\varphi$ - the angle between dashed tangent lines to $t_1'$ and $t_2'$, is equal to $\theta$ (one of the properties, that were previously proved, is that tangent line to the circle at $O$ is parallel to its image under the inversion) [so far so good]

... and the angle $\theta'$ between the tangent lines to the $C_1'$ and $C_2'$ mapped curves equals the angle between the circles ($t_1'$ and $t_2'$) at point of intersection, which in turn equals to $\varphi$ ...

So, once I know that black non-dashed lines are indeed tangent to circles I'm done. But why are those lines tangent to circles?

$\endgroup$
14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because the original curves are tangent to the original lines, therefore the image curves are tangent to the image circles, no? Therefore, the image curves and the image circles have common tangents (which are the solid black lines). $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 26, 2020 at 15:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How much background do you have in differential geometry? If I say "any diffeomorphism between two smooth manifolds preserves tangency between curves/submanifolds," would that mean anything to you? I do think you have to use some differential geometry here since you need to somehow define tangents of curves. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 8:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't have a geometric proof, only a differential geometry proof. Since you already looked up something about Jacobians and that didn't satisfy you, I doubt my approach will. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 8:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question would be greatly improved by labeling the lines and circles by conventional letters, instead of by color. $\endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 10:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Servaes, edited both text and image $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 12:10

3 Answers 3

2
+100
$\begingroup$

Since the question asks for a clarification of a textbook proof, I'll post copies of the proof and diagram, because the answer will refer to them.

Diagram for proof

enter image description here

The question states that "the lines near the second point of circle intersection - are tangents to mapped curves." However, the proof in the textbook says that the straight lines at $P'$ are tangents to the circles $t'_1$ and $t'_2$,which are the images of the original curve tangents. The confusion comes, I believe, from the phrase "corresponding tangents $t'_1$ and $t'_2$ at $P'$ to the image curves $C'_1,C'_2$" Here they mean that the circles are tangent to the curves, and they seem to be making an implicit assumption that if curves touch ("are tangent to each other") then the image curves will also touch ("be tangent").

So it remains to show that the tangents to the image circles are the same as the tangents to the image curves at $P'$. This can be done by treating the tangents as the limits of secants going through $P'$, and it is a fairly straightforward exercise to show that the circle secants and curve secants converge to the same straight line.

There is a traditional (and in my opinion canonical) proof involving secants that most other texts use to show the anti-conformal property of inversions. Wolfe's Introduction to Non-Euclidean Geometry, pg. 240 gives one version. In case this link isn't stable, here's a screen cap:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ How do we know that the limit of $\angle PRQ$ (or $\angle Q'R'P'$ for the matters) is necessarily an angle between a tangent line to the curve and the $RQ$ (or $Q'R'$)? It basically the same assumption as in the College Geometry book $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ I think your comment is assuming that RQ isn't changing. Think of $Q$ as being on the line $OP$, so as $P$ approaches $R$ so does $Q$. $P$ and $Q$ run along their respective curves. Then as $P$ approaches $R$ the secant $PR$ (dashed line) converges to the tangent of the curve $PR$ (solid curve) at $R$. Similarly $QR$ converges to the tangent of curve $QR$ at $R$. It follows that $\angle PRQ$ converges to the angle between the tangents. $\endgroup$
    – brainjam
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 13:00
2
$\begingroup$

It is not difficult to use multi-variable calculus to show that an inversion map is conformal (e.g., showing that the Jacobian matrix at each point of an inversion map is a scalar multiple of a reflection matrix). Let's say that you have an inversion $\iota$ about the point $(h,k)$ with radius $r$. Then $$\iota(x,y)=\left(h+\frac{r^2(x-h)}{(x-h)^2+(y-k)^2},k+\frac{r^2(y-k)}{(x-h)^2+(y-k)^2}\right).$$ The Jacobian matrix of $\iota$ is then $$J(x,y)=\frac{r^2}{(x-h)^2+(y-k)^2}R(x,y)$$ where $R(x,y)$ is the reflection matrix $$R(x,y)=\begin{bmatrix}-\cos\theta(x,y) &-\sin\theta(x,y)\\ -\sin\theta(x,y)&\cos\theta(x,y)\end{bmatrix}$$ s.t. $$\cos\theta(x,y)=\frac{(x-h)^2-(y-k)^2}{(x-h)^2+(y-k)^2}$$ and $$\sin\theta(x,y)=\frac{2(x-h)(y-k)}{(x-h)^2+(y-k)^2}.$$ Indeed, if a differentiable bijection $\phi:M\to M$ where $M$ is an open subset of $\Bbb R^n$, is such that the Jacobian matrix of $\phi$ at each point $s\in M$ is of the form $\sigma(s)A(s)$, where $\sigma:M\to\Bbb R$ is a strictly positive-valued function and $A(s)$ is an orthogonal matrix for each $s\in M$, then $\phi$ is a conformal map.

Here is a differential geometry argument. I merely intended to give the thread some answer. I do not immediately see an elementary geometry proof, since the discussion of tangents of an arbitrary curve should involve some level of calculus/differential geometry. Please enlighten me if there is a way to avoid calculus/differential geometry completely.

An inversion map $\iota$ can be extended to the Riemann sphere $\hat{\Bbb C}=\Bbb C\cup \{\infty\}$. (Say, $\iota$ is the inversion about a circle centered at some point $o$. Then $\iota(\infty)=o$ and $\iota(o)=\infty$. A straight line is actually a circle in $\hat{\Bbb C}$ that passes through $\infty$, and the inversion w.r.t. this straight line is the same as the reflection about the line.) This map can be easily seen to be smooth, but this is the pivotal part of the problem so an interested reader should check it. Since $\iota$ is an involution, it is a auto-diffeomorphism of $\hat{\Bbb C}$.

Let $I$ be the open interval $(-1,1)$. Suppose that the curves $\alpha,\beta$ which are, respectively, the images of two differentiable embeddings $a,b:I\to\hat{\Bbb C}$ are tangent at a point $p=a(0)=b(0)$, then the tangent spaces $T_p\alpha=da_0(T_0I)$ and $T_p\beta=db_0(T_0I)$ coincide. (Differentiability of $a$ and $b$ is necessary. Otherwise it makes no sense to discuss the term tangents.)

Let $q=\iota(p)$. Then the differential map $d\iota_p:T_p\hat{\Bbb C}\to T_q\hat{\Bbb C}$ is an isomorphism of vector spaces due to $\iota$ being a diffeomorphism of $\hat{\Bbb C}$. Therefore $d\iota_p$ sends $$T_p\alpha\mapsto T_q\iota(\alpha)$$ and $$T_p\beta\mapsto T_q\iota(\beta).$$ But $T_p\alpha=T_p\beta$, so $$T_q\iota(\alpha)=T_q\iota(\beta).$$ Hence the inversion images $\iota(\alpha)$ and $\iota(\beta)$ of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ under $\iota$ meet at $q$, at which the tangent spaces coincide. Thus $\iota(\alpha)$ and $\iota(\beta)$ are tangent at $q$.

Back to the problem, when $\alpha$ is the original blue curve and $\beta$ is the original green line, then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are tangent at $p$. Then the blue image curve $\iota(\alpha)$ and the green image circle $\iota(\beta)$ are tangent at $q=\iota(p)$. Therefore the black line that is tangent to the green circle $\iota(\beta)$ at $q$ is also tangent to the blue image curve $\iota(\alpha)$. The same applies if $\alpha$ is the original red curve and $\beta$ is the original violet line.

From the previous paragraph, it follows that if $\iota$ is conformal with respect to straight lines and circles in $\hat{\Bbb C}$ (well in fact straight lines in $\hat{\Bbb C}$ are the same as circles), then $\iota$ is conformal with respect to all differentiable curves in $\hat{\Bbb C}$. Since conformality w.r.t. straight lines and circles is known (and not difficult to establish via elementary geometry), we are done.

It is possible to establish conformality of $\iota$ solely using differential geometry as well. Let $g$ be the usual Riemannian metric on $\hat{\Bbb C}$. Show that the pullback $\iota^*g$ of $g$ under $\iota$ satisfies $(\iota^*g)_p=f(p)g_p$ for some function $f:\hat{\Bbb C}\to \Bbb R$ s.t. $f(p)>0$ for every $p\in\hat{\Bbb C}$.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know a thing about differential geometry, but I have a gut feeling, that it is a circular reference to the proof I'm trying to understand. Some things are kind of taken for granted by us. $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ There is no circular reference here. Once you show that $\iota$ is a diffeomorphism, the rest follows. The "tangent-preserving" property is true for any diffeomorphism, without any reference to the specific geometric problem you are dealing with. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ It is difficult for me to talk about things I don't quite understand. a) Wikipedia article on diffeomorphisms depicts a square under some diffeomorphic transformation, that does not look like conformal b) When you say $\hat{\mathbb{C}}$ - do you imagine a specific Riemann Sphere model - aka a unit sphere, that under a very specific involution is just a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^3$ - the space we embed it? c) if the radius of inversion is something that is not a rotation of the sphere, does it preserve angles? $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ I never claimed a diffeomorphism is necessarily conformal. Conformality is an additional property to an inversion map such as $\iota$. I only claimed that tangent curves are mapped to tangent curves under a diffeomorphism. And $\hat{\Bbb C}$ is just $\Bbb C$ with the point at infinity. It has the same geometry as any two-dimensional sphere. I don't understand your question (c). How is a radius a rotation or not a rotation? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ I meant if i'm making an inversion (like $\frac{1}{z}$), where circle is a big circle on the sphere - than it is a rotation of the sphere. Other circles and only circle inversions probably the action is different (i.e. rotation followed by reflection with respect to plane through something, and scaling things). $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 8:24
0
$\begingroup$

You are referring to two circles passing through the center of inversion which have straight line inversions by complex Inversion transformation

$$ z_2= \frac {a^2}{z_1}=\frac {1}{z_1} $$

The sketch shows Inversion of Circles passing through Inversion center O. The green circle is the Circle of Inversion. I is image of point P passing through O, i.e., points P on blue circle map to points I on red circle across mirror points M of the green inverting mirror circle.

Shown are parts of angle

$$ \alpha = \alpha_1+ \alpha_2 $$

at the three intersection /concurrent points $(A_1,A_2,O)$ and how they should be same at the opposite corner. (I have not drawn tangents to avoid crowding of lines and circles meeting at corner).

From a differential equation viewpoint, $(\sin \psi= r/c) $ for a circle through center. With inversion transformation $ r \rightarrow \dfrac{a^2}{r}$ it becomes $ ( r \sin \psi = a^2/c) $ which is a straight line of shortest length or geodesic.

Inversion of Circles passing through Inversion center 1

Inversion of Circles passing through Inversion center 2

Shall revise my answer if it is not addressing your question properly. Blue circles cut the inversion circle and second picture is zoomed.

Half sum of the three angles at center is $180^{\circ}$ which is also seen as sum of three internal angles of a triangle. This demonstrates angle sum of the vertices.

Hope you are seeing a bigger/comprehensive picture here.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose you are showing that angles between clines are preserved. I think I'm able to show this result. What if curves are not circles/lines? $\endgroup$
    – dEmigOd
    Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ As just now added comment in last para of answer. Line/Circle is a mutually invertible curve pair. For generality refer to Liouville's polar curves $ r= a (\cos (n \theta) )^{1/n} $ $\endgroup$
    – Narasimham
    Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 20:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .